CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Effect of Plaque Burden and Morphology on Myocardial Blood Flow and Fractional Flow Reserve Complete Versus Culprit-Only Lesion Intervention in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes Impact of Off-Hours Versus On-Hours Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Myocardial Damage and Clinical Outcomes in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Coronary CT Angiography in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Galectin-3 Levels and Outcomes After Myocardial Infarction: A Population-Based Study Shock Team Approach in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Short-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support: A Proof of Concept The Prognostic Significance of Periprocedural Infarction in the Era of Potent Antithrombotic Therapy: The PRAGUE-18 Substudy

Review Article2018 Oct 16;72(16):1972-1980.

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Cardiac Shock Care Centers: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Rab T, Ratanapo S, Kern KB et al. Keywords: cardiogenic shock; care pathway; shock center

ABSTRACT

Despite advances over the past decade, the incidence of cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction has increased, with an unchanged mortality near 50%. Recent trials have not clarified the best strategies in treatment. While dedicated cardiac shock centers are being established, there are no standardized agreements on the utilization of mechanical circulatory support and the timeliness of percutaneous coronary intervention strategies. In some centers and prospective registries, outcomes after placement of advanced mechanical circulatory support prior to reperfusion therapy with percutaneous coronary intervention have been encouraging with improved survival. Here, we suggest systems of care with a treatment pathway for patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.